Monthly Archives: July 2016

If you happen to see the Bill Clinton 5-minute TV ad for Hillary in which he introduces the commercial by saying he wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary’s background, beware.

I was there for most of their presidency and know them better than just about anyone, I offer a few corrections.

Bill says: “In law school, Hillary worked on legal services for the poor.”

The facts are: Hillary’s main extra-curricular activity in law school was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a federal agent. She went to court every day as part of a law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.

Bill says: “Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a children’s rights project for poor kids.”

The facts are:Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.

Bill says: “Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers.”

The facts are: She flunked the DC bar exam;

yes, flunked. It is a matter of record, and only passed the Arkansas bar. She had no job offers in Arkansas — none — and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there. She did not join the prestigious Rose Law Firm until Bill became Arkansas Attorney General and was made a partner only after he was elected Arkansas Governor.

Bill says: “President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its chairman.”

The facts are: The appointment was in exchange for Bill’s support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary then became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter’s choice to be chairman.

Bill says: “She served on the board of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital.”

The facts are: Yes, she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Walmart board of directors for a substantial fee. She was silent about their labor and health care practices.

Bill says: “Hillary didn’t succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994, but she kept working at it and helped to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance.”

The facts are: Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP.

It was included in the budget deal between Clinton and Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott. I know; I helped negotiate the deal. The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals’ tobacco settlement. Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.

Bill says: “Hillary was the face of America all over the world.”

The facts are: Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House. Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and symbolic and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them.

Bill says: “Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for children’s and women’s issues.”

The facts are: Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she has passed only four substantive pieces of legislation. One set up a national park in Puerto Rico. A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer’s or other conditions. And two were routine bills to aid 911 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire NY delegation. Presently she is trying to have the US memorialize the Woodstock fiasco of 40 years ago.

Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton:

She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our country

(that’s you and me!) when it comes to the war on terror.

She wants to close GITMO and move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.

She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qaeda phone calls to/from the USA.

She wants to grantconstitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qaeda cells and supporters in the USA.

She wants to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists even though such tactics might save American lives.

One cannot think of a single bill Hillary has introduced or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our country in the War on Terror.

But, one can think of a lot of comments she has made that weaken our country and make it a more dangerous situation for all of us. Bottom line: She goes hand in hand with the ACLU on far too many issues where common sense is abandoned.

Baltimore, Maryland (July 26, 2016): The National Federation of the Blind today applauded language in the platforms of both major political parties that calls for the end of the payment of subminimum wages to workers with disabilities.

Mark A. Riccobono, President of the National Federation of the Blind, said: “The National Federation of the Blind has advocated for the elimination of the subminimum wage since our founding, and the recognition of this issue by leaders of both political parties further confirms that the time has long passed to eliminate the unfair and separate wage system for people with disabilities. We applaud the statements of both Democratic and Republican delegates, and urge members of Congress to follow those statements with the actions required to pass the Transitioning to Integrated and Meaningful Employment Act as soon as possible when Congress resumes its session.”

The Democratic Party platform states in pertinent part: “We … support … ending the sub-minimum wage for … people with disabilities.” The Republican Party platform states in pertinent part: “Our TIME Act (Transition[ing] to Integrated and Meaningful Employment) will modernize the Fair Labor Standards Act to encourage competitive employment for persons with disabilities. … We endorse efforts like Employment First that replace dependency with jobs in the mainstream of the American workforce.”

###

About the National Federation of the Blind

The National Federation of the Blind knows that blindness is not the characteristic that defines you or your future. Every day we raise the expectations of blind people, because low expectations create obstacles between blind people and our dreams. You can live the life you want; blindness is not what holds you back.

For more information about the National Federation of the Blind, please visit: www.nfb.org.National Federation of the Blind
200 East Wells Street
at Jernigan Place
Baltimore, MD 21230
United States
(410) 659-9314

Few nuclear power plants have been as contentious as Diablo Canyon. The plant, which went online in 1985 after years of ferocious opposition, sits on a gorgeous stretch of California coastline, surrounded by several earthquake faults and reliably producing enormous quantities of power — almost a tenth of California’s in-state generation. It also reliably kills enormous quantities of marine life with a cooling system that depends on huge intakes and discharges of seawater. David Brower, the executive director of the Sierra Club, got so angry with the organization when it refused to oppose the plant that he left to establish Friends of the Earth.

Mr. Brower, who died in 2000, would have been pleased with last week’s news. After long negotiations that involved, among others, Friends of the Earth and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the plant’s owner, Pacific Gas and Electric, announced that it would shut down Diablo Canyon when licenses for its two reactors expire in 2024 and 2025 and that it would replace the power with lower-cost, zero-carbon energy sources.

Approvals will be needed from two state agencies, the California State Lands Commission and the state’s Public Utilities Commission. Both should say yes; this is an event of potentially great significance for the future of energy generation in this country and for the health of the earth itself — and not just because a bunch of sometimes quarrelsome forces (unions, environmental groups, the power company) came together to make it happen.

First, the agreement is a recognition by PG&E, which generates a big chunk of its electrical output (and revenues) from Diablo Canyon, that it can provide the same amount of energy at lower costs by investing in wind andsolar power and in energy efficiency improvements throughout the system, including its customers. As one negotiator put it, the deal is further evidence that “the age of renewables has arrived” — at least in California, which has long led the nation in energy innovation and last year passed a law requiring state-regulated utilities to get half their electricity from renewable sources by 2030.

Equally important, the agreement could serve as a positive example for other states and nations that may in time need to replace aging nuclear plants without increasing carbon emissions. However old and creaky some of them may be, America’s 99 nuclear reactors produce nearly a fifth of the nation’s power and two-thirds of its low-carbon energy; at a time of mounting fears about climate change, the country would be foolish to shut them down prematurely. When the time comes to retire them, it would be no less foolish to replace their power with anything other than zero-carbon sources like wind, or solar or energy efficiency.

Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

One governor who understands this is New York’s Andrew Cuomo. Mr. Cuomo has proposed an ambitious clean-energy agenda that includes not only substantial investments in wind and solar power, but also subsidies to keep open several upstate nuclear plants that are at risk of closing because of low electricity prices driven by cheap natural gas.

Mr. Cuomo would be happy to close down the Indian Point plant, north of New York City. Indian Point has a terrible track record and last week was forced to shut down one reactor. But losing the upstate plants, he argues, would mean increased reliance on fossil fuels and the greenhouse gas emissions they generate until the day when renewables kick in. A similar drama is playing out in Illinois, where Exelon, a big power producer, has threatened to close down two money-losing nuclear plants unless it gets help from the Illinois legislature.

From a climate perspective, the smart strategy in such cases would be to hold on to the nuclear plants until a California-like transition to greenhouse-gas-free electricity is feasible. Not every state has California’s natural blessings, or its aggressive renewable energy mandates. But its commitment and imagination are worth emulating.

The “lesser-of-evils” argument might not work for independent voters this year.

For those who hope for swift unity in the Democratic Party, there are reasons to believe it won’t happen if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.
While there are serious policy differences between Clinton and Bernie Sanders, a deeper fault line between their supporters must be acknowledged.

Certainly the two candidates remain far apart on issues that matter to progressives and independents — fracking, the TPP, tuition-free public colleges, universal single-payer healthcare, racist policing — to name just a few. Indeed, based on policy and political strategy, many independents and Democrats see Clinton as more like a traditional Republican. Many even see it as indicative of privilege if one supports Clinton over Sanders, given the current state of the economy and the environment. Many intelligent progressives see the two candidates as representing different social classes.

Nevertheless, a debate about policy differences only partially explains the disconnect between Clinton, on the one hand, and Democrats, independents, and progressives, on the other. Clinton has begun incorporating into her speeches many core issues of the Sanders campaign, including some mentioned above, but there remain deeper reasons many intelligent left-leaning voters remain unable to support Hillary Clinton: dishonesty and scandals.

Don’t Shoot the Messenger
These deeper issues aren’t generally considered important by writers in the mainstream media. They paint Clinton’s dishonesty and scandals as Republican fabrications or as remnants of longstanding political vendettas that no longer matter. Writers, like yours truly, are generally accused of supporting the Republican if we even mention Clinton’s deeper shortcomings; we are also accused of sexism if we happen to be men.

So I will be attacked for writing this article. But I find it important nonetheless to try to help Democrats understand why, on a level deeper than just policy, intelligent non-sexist progressives and independents are generally unable to support Hillary Clinton.
First, it’s important to state that some of the scandals and darker rumors about Hillary and Bill Clinton are indeed the result of baseless political attacks. I’ve left those out of this article as much as possible.

Some Clinton scandals however are about real events, crimes, and misdemeanors, and those scandals are what must be acknowledged.

Just because a Republican says something doesn’t automatically mean that it’s false. Just because you don’t like the news that a messenger brings doesn’t mean that the messenger is wrong. Just because a journalist writes about the many reasons intelligent progressives are unlikely to support Clinton does not mean that that journalist is sexist or supports the atrocious and fraudulent candidacy of Donald Trump. Trump is very bad, and must be defeated, but that doesn’t automatically make Clinton good in the minds of independent and progressive voters.

The truth is that poll after poll finds that people across the political spectrum do not trust Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders polls way ahead of her on the topic of honesty and trustworthiness — by as much as 50 points — and if he’s the nominee, polls show he would unite the left and independents in a way that Hillary will not.
Voters find even Trump — who seems to concoct his own facts and policy positions during each and every speech — more trustworthy than Clinton, by 8 points and growing.

Corporate media pundits who write for publications supporting Clinton (I’m looking at you, New York Times, CNN, NPR, and MSNBC) shrug off these numbers as the simple product of longstanding attacks on her credibility by her opponents. This is exactly the kind of nonchalant dismissiveness and shoddy journalism that doesn’t wash with intelligent progressives and independents anymore. There are many, many politicians who have been in the public eye for decades; only a handful are seen to be as dishonest as Hillary Clinton.

It’s not rocket science. The unbiased history shows that she does lie and obfuscate more frequently than other politicians, and she has changed her policy positions more often than most.
Intelligent voters notice this. Clinton rarely seems to be speaking her mind. She appears to calculate before speaking what specific words she should use to kill off a line of questioning, rather than engage in open discussion.

Barack Obama once said, “Hillary Clinton will say anything, and change nothing.” These words resonated with voters in 2008, and they resonate again now.

What She Says, or What She Does
To really understand why non-sexist, intelligent progressives and independents are unable to support Clinton we have to look at some historical patterns that provide a basis for mistrust.

Author Michelle Alexander has eloquently explained that Hillary Clinton and her husband bear much responsibility for the rise of mass incarceration of African Americans and the “new jim-crow.” Alexander explores the uncomfortable awareness that the Clintons might be as racist as Trump, but just hide it better. When someone is viewed as dishonest, what they do and have done becomes much more important than what they say.

Intelligent progressives also know that because of who Hillary is, as journalist Naomi Klein puts it, she is unfit and unable to address the crucial issues of climate change and wealth inequality. In other words, regardless of what she says, her longstanding connections to corporations such as Walmart, Monsanto, and Goldman Sachs formed her worldview long ago and she is unwilling—and unable—to change. What is worse is that she can speak out on the campaign trail as if she would challenge these corporations, but whether or not she would is less important than the sense that she is dishonest and secretive and will say anything to get elected.

Her Damn Emails
Let’s look at a very recent, pertinent event. FBI Director James Comey reported to the nation this month on the findings of an FBI investigation into Clinton’s secret use of a private email server to conduct official business.

Many people remember Hillary last year answering questions about this secret server. Even Bernie Sanders said, “We’re tired of hearing about your damn emails.”

It turns out virtually everything she said last year about her secret server was contradicted by Comey and the FBI:

To neutral observers, and to intelligent progressives, this scandal isn’t “much ado about nothing,” as some diehard Clinton supporters maintain.

The fact that she set up her own email server and used her own personal email accounts isn’t just probable evidence that she broke numerous parts of the Espionage Act and thus might no longer qualify for security clearance. It’s an even bigger deal when one considers the allegations, discussed below, that Clinton ran the state department partly for personal enrichment by accepting large donations to the Clinton Foundation from repressive countries for which she approved weapons deals. If she sent classified information via her personal email account or communicated secretly with countries or foreign nationals who were donating to the Clinton Foundation, and then wiped her private server, this could point to serious corruption.

An Honest Appraisal of Scandals, Fraud, and Worse
Dozens of scandals have swirled around the Clinton’s rise through Arkansas and national politics. It would be difficult to compile a full appraisal of these scandals, as there are so many, but doing a short survey of them should go a long way toward explaining why the “lesser-of-evils” argument probably won’t work for independent and progressive voters considering their options in November.

I’ve chosen four that I think best provide an understanding of the state of mind of independent and progressive voters.

1. Election Rigging and Fraud. This is a current scandal on the minds of voters today. As has been documented extensively in both the corporate and alternative media, this Democratic primary was rigged in countless ways for Clinton from the very beginning. The media began counting superdelegates in October as if they’d already voted even though today they still haven’t; the DNC performed something shockingly similar to money laundering for the Clinton campaign to circumvent donation maximums and funnel millions to her campaign; the debates were reduced, canceled, or scheduled at times few people would watch, which prevented Bernie Sanders from becoming better know earlier in the primary; and the primary rules as a whole were written and rewritten by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who happens to be a longtime Clinton friend and ally.

Even worse: voter rolls were mysteriously purged in many states; caucus rules were changed suddenly; and actual votes were flipped by the thousands in many states, according to scientific analysis.
In nearly every single instance, the election fraud and rigging of the rules favored Clinton.

The fact that Clinton benefited so much from all of this and never said anything about it, for many, is the straw that broke the camel’s back. It’s one thing if an imperfect system is a little bit unfair here and there. It’s another thing if the rules are systematically broken, always in favor of one candidate, and the beneficiary simply takes the spoils and runs. Mathematicians and election analysts have shown that when likely fraud is taken into account, Bernie Sanders may be rightfully winning right now going into the convention. At the very least, if Clinton values party unity, she should call for investigations and, where merited by evidence, request recounts or even revotes. That would go a long, long way to building party unity. Most voters want, first and foremost, a basic sense that the election has been fair.

This scandal has gotten little corporate media coverage so far, but it has been covered extensively in alternative media. Were Clinton viewed generally as trustworthy, this might not matter so much, but as it is, it’s a reason many independent voters remain uneasy, if not outright suspicious, about Hillary.

2. The Clinton Foundation. Mentioned above, this scandal is problematic even from a nonpartisan standpoint. There is a disturbing correlation between large donations accepted by the Clinton Foundation from repressive regimes, on the one hand, and enormous weapons deals approved for those same repressive regimes by the Clinton-led State Department, on the other.

To an honest, nonpartisan observer, it appears raising money for her foundation was at least as important as sending arms to repressive Middle Eastern regimes.

Here’s a short segment that covers this scandal in a vituperative but informative documentary by investigative journalist Abby Martin.

3. Drug Money in Arkansas. Of the many other scandals surrounding the Clintons’ rise to power in Arkansas and Washington, DC— I’m leaving out anything to do with Bill Clinton’s affairs and alleged sexual violence — this one scandal, to many progressives and independents, is the most damning. You don’t have to be a Republican to become suspicious when you learn the role the Clintons played in the longstanding importation of cocaine into the rural Mena, Arkansas airport by the CIA; this took place as part of the Iran-Contra scandal, while Clinton was governor of Arkansas.

The corporate media at first ignored the Mena story, but as numerous independent sources reported that the Clintons’ reaped benefits from this cocaine trafficking, it eventually broke through into the corporate media too, where it was only somewhat contained.

Millions in cash were evidently laundered through a state agency the Clintons created — the Arkansas Development Finance Authority — and some of the money was used to fund their political rise.

4. Dead People. This one is the most difficult to contemplate, most difficult to prove, and most difficult to ignore. I chose it because it would seriously stain a Clinton candidacy in the eyes of many independent voters come November.

Ninety-one people who have been close, politically or personally, to the Clintons have died in unusual or unexplained circumstances during the Clintons’ time in Arkansas and national politics. Not included in that devastating count are two people who died just in the past month: Young DNC data director Seth Rich, who was managing Democratic Party voter records and had a passion for election integrity, was murdered via four shots to the back in Washington DC; and John Ashe, former UN President who was about to testify in a corruption case surrounding a Chinese businessman with connections to the Clintons, died in New York apparently from a dumbbell falling on his neck.

Please note that I’m not making an allegation about either of these particular murders, just conveying the horrifying sense of this strange series of deaths. This piece recounts forty or so of the worst, if you want to read more. Perhaps it’s enough to say that many independent and progressive voters view the Clintons as actual criminals. For many people, there’s just too much evidence to reject out of hand these deaths as—to use the most anti-intellectual epithet of our time—a ‘conspiracy theory.’ It’s an ugly picture indeed.

Aura of Secrecy and Avoidance
Ultimately Hillary Clinton’s campaign managers must know that she either has things to hide or simply fears speaking freely. Whatever the reason, she hasn’t held any public news conferences this entire year. Let me say that again: While running for the highest office in the land, Hillary Clinton hasn’t held a single public news conference where the media can ask her questions.

This aura of avoidance adds to a perception that she’s dishonest and secretive. Whether or not she’s hiding something, avoiding the press provides another reason to think that she is hiding something. The easiest way to dispel perceptions of dishonesty and secrecy is simply to speak more and to speak more openly. Hillary Clinton doesn’t do this, and so we’re all left with our own assumptions about her.

Some voters will assume that she has nothing to hide and that all of this is a Republican or sexist plot to discredit her.
Other intelligent progressives and independents of all ages, races, and genders assume that she does have something to hide. There seem to be scandals within scandals surrounding her, and, in a nutshell, this is why so many intelligent people do not trust her and cannot support her.

If Clinton becomes the nominee, this mistrust does not bode well for party unity, and it might prove foolish to expect the “lesser of evils” argument to work in an election against Donald Trump, as ridiculously bad as his candidacy is. Many progressives and independents will vote for Green Party nominee Jill Stein, write in Bernie Sanders on their ballots, or simply stay home.

If the Democratic Party delegates, on the other hand, cast the remaining 700 votes to award Bernie Sanders the nomination at the convention in Philadelphia, they will nominate a candidate not only more trustworthy than Donald Trump, but a historically honest, trustworthy, and scandal-free candidate. Bernie Sanders will likely appeal to progressives and independents across the spectrum, unite the entirety of the Democratic party, and defeat Donald Trump in a November landslide.

Have you noticed an increase in friend requests? Have you ever wondered if any of those are REAL people?

I have a suspicion that many people, especially those of high profile, are being bombarded with a plethora of fake Facebook friend requests.

Why?

If you are disseminating important information that goes against the Cabal’s agenda, then flooding your 5,000 Facebook friend limit with fake accounts would prevent your information reaching REAL people who would benefit from it.

I check each and every friend request I receive. Numerous times, I have seen at least one Facebook friend listed as a “mutual friend” by such requests. In many of these profiles, the first and most recent post is porn related. When this happens, I notify the mutual friend and will remind them to take the time to see who they are friending.

But there are other reasons why fake accounts are being created.

According to a report on Tech.Mic, police departments around the nation have taken predictive crime prevention to a new level by building fake user accounts, as well as posing as genuine people to gather information about local events. (1)

10 Ways To Identify A Fake User Account On Facebook

Account was made recently 2015, 2016.

Account has no history published for earlier years, but Facebook says they have been a member since 2009, etc.

Most fake accounts have 1 image or no real profile photo of the person. Some may only have a select few photos over a long span of time. A well seasoned user would have more photos posted over a long period of time. A fake account may have 7-10 photos posted on the same day.

User has very few friends in common and or friends in general.

There is little to no interaction on their page with friends, no comments, likes or responses over their long time line.

Profile picture seems to good to be true, that hot model added you today! They even messaged you and are interested in you!

When in doubt use reverse image search. Take their image and see if it is a real person or not.

When in doubt deny, deny, deny.

The user doesn’t “like” any bands, books, or movies.

The user doesn’t belong to any groups

A few Facebook tips:

I am probably more judicial than most Facebook users. I won’t add anyone who I can’t see their page, nor will I add anyone who floods their wall with political posts. If they haven’t posted in at least a month, then chances are, they’re not active on Facebook, so I won’t add them either.

Of course, there are always exceptions to every rule but in general, these trends seem to weed out inactive profiles and political clutter on my Facebook feed.

If you go through your friends list, you will see some profiles without a picture. Many of these users are no longer on Facebook but are still counted against your 5,000 friend limit.

If you click on their name and they are no longer on Facebook, then you will be redirected back to your personal Facebook page. At that point, you can officially “unfriend” them and free up more room to add more people.

Take the time to see who is friending you. Facebook is a numbers game to a lot of people, but I’d rather have a small number of quality friends than a maxed out 5,000 limit of fake profiles or a plethora of people posting crap I don’t want to see on my newsfeed.

Gregg Prescott, M.S. is the founder and editor of In5D and BodyMindSoulSpirit as well as co-founder of WooWooMedia.com He hosts a weekly spiritual show on In5D Radio and promotes spiritual, metaphysical and esoteric conferences in the United States through In5dEvents. His love and faith for humanity motivates him to work relentlessly in humanity’s best interests 12-15+ hours a day, 365 days a year.

Readers reveal their moments of subtle sexism in the workplace. Read more of the stories on Guardian Witness

Sexism in the workplace can be subtle, leaving many wondering, ‘Can he say that?’ Photograph: Alamy

When Shoes of Prey co-founder Jodie Fox met a potential investor in a bar, he looked her up and down and greeted her with the comment “You look amazing”. Although she didn’t say anything at the time, she wondered to herself “Can he say that?”

When the remark was relayed to Guardian readers, most agreed it was inappropriate for a business meeting. Gabi in Rotterdam said: “Some of the commenters asked Fox how she would react if the compliment had come from another woman or from a gay man. That’s not the point. The point is, would hehave made that compliment to another man? It’s about his behaviour, not her reaction.”

It seems it’s an uncomfortably common experience, with many readers saying they had received comments on their appearance at work, sometimes said as a compliment, sometimes veering into questionable territory.

Many shared their experiences of subtle sexism in the workplace. They ranged from the “hmm” to the blatant to the eye-wateringly awful:

‘Hair twirling’

I recall once the suggestion that I ask a question of another team, in a very airy and innocent manner, hair-twirling and all, to try and get a more favourable answer than previously. I was (hopefully) expressionless as I simply repeated the response we’d already gotten. The guys on my team have never been asked to approach anyone like that.
– Lisa, an economist from Canada

‘Can you do some Moulin Rouge dancing?

A conversation about my partner being French elicited a question about if he had a sister. I responded ‘yes, but she’s 10’. He replied ‘I could wait a few years’ … he’s in his 50s, and he’s my boss. Then [we had] a conversation about presenting to senior decision-makers and it being a bit of a ‘song and dance act’. He asked me ‘Could you speak French to them?’ (yes). ‘How about some sort of Moulin Rouge dancing?’ There’s nothing wrong with working as an exotic dancer, but I work in a government office …
– CJ, a public servant from Western Australia

‘You can always tell them you’re female’

Studying electrical engineering and being told that IQ is inversely related to breast size by male students. Later, during honours, being told it’s OK for me to stuff up, I can always tell ‘them’ I’m female. This wisdom was via my supervisor who is a woman and mother of two girls. Go sorority!
– fknusrnms, via Witness

‘How can you be a sculptor when you have to lift heavy materials?’

I was introduced to a male student who was concerned with my career choices. His concern was stated as follows: how can you possibly be a female sculptor when you have to lift so many heavy materials? Thank you for your opinion but I’m sure we can manage.
– Katie Johnston, via Witness

‘Why are you dressed like you work in a strip club?’

While working as a digital consultant at a household name brand, I came to an informal meeting and one man loudly asked in front of my colleagues: ‘Why are you dressed like you work in a strip club?’ (I was wearing a knee-length straight skirt and high-neck short-sleeved blouse, opaque tights and flat shoes – huh? The blouse was leopard print). Colleagues were shocked. When I finished consultancy, I complained to HR who disciplined him.
– Zorra, via Witness

‘You look good in a tight skirt’

I once had a job interview, which went really well. I got the job and have since changed workplaces.

But the next week when I was at my (now former) work, I said to my boss, ‘One of the questions I got asked during the interview was what positive things would my co-workers say about me. What do you think is one of my positive aspects?’ He replied, ‘Well, you look good in a tight skirt.’
– Jane, a receptionist from Sydney

Most Guardian readers said even if they had experienced subtle sexism in the workplace, they didn’t take it any further.

As Bea, a former teacher from San Francisco said: “A former male manager made mention of the fact that the only female manager in the company had ‘slept her way’ into management. I was taken aback, but knew that were I to mention my distaste with the comment, then I’d be labelled ‘difficult’.”

The trailers are laid out on the site around a clubhouse designed by architect Dan Weber. According to Dwell Magazine, the site is subject to catastrophic floods and the building was designed accordingly:

Elevated four feet above grade, the structure is comprised of unyielding materials to brace against disastrous floods like the deluge that submerged Guerneville’s roads in 1986: board formed concrete walls, locally harvested redwood ceilings, and blackened steel that will patina over time. “The material palette had to be robust enough that a tree floating through the building wouldn’t damage it,” explains Weber.

I assume that the Airstreams can just be hitched up and towed to higher ground; that is a benefit of mobile living. It also treads lightly on the ground; they write on the Autocamp site:

AutoCamp is not only luxury camping, but a great way to experience environmentally-sustainable, small-space design. We love hotels, travel, and design, but we also value the preservation of our local and global environment.

To put it simply, we believe that great design has the power to change the world, and that smart planning and small space design can help us reduce our environmental footprint. We invite you to come experience the simplicity of small space design at AutoCamp.

However these are not restored old Airstreams, which would have been greener still; they are custom designed by Dan Weber in a Midcentury Modern style, with all the comforts. Each sleeps four and come complete with Casper mattresses, fancy organic linens and even the coffee is from their favorite local roaster.

Some are be appalled at the idea of glamping; Sunset talks to one camper who considered it “but we didn’t want to feed the industry that is killing the experience. Commercializing camping is a terrible trend.”

I am not so sure; one could also compare it to the many campground resorts that were all over the US and Canada in the postwar years, most of which have disappeared. They filled a real need for people who could not afford or didn’t want second homes, cottages or cabins or even their own trailers; it makes much more sense to rent like this. Also, there are lots of people who don’t want to sleep on the ground, and fewer young people are camping. As Scott Hale, a consultant, tells Sunset: “The outdoors needed a bit of a refresh to engage a new generation.” Not to mention good WiFi and a few hidden Pokémon.

Starting at $175 a night, it is a lot more costly than camping. But it is a great introduction to small space living, and it does get people outside, and compared to some of the wretched excess in the area, it’s pretty modest. I think it looks like fun, and hope that people realize that there is no need to look down at the trailer park, but that it is a great model for development for anyone. And as consultant Hale notes, “We need a bigger audience to help steward the natural world.”

by Kurt Badenhausen – The college football bowl season kicks off this week with a slate of six games on Saturday. Twenty-fifth-ranked Boise State is the only school ranked in the top 25 in action during the first day of games with most of the bigger names taking the field in two weeks. There […]

By Rob Urban – Futures on the world’s most popular cryptocurrency surged as much as 26 percent in their debut session on Cboe Global Markets Inc.’s exchange, triggering two temporary trading halts designed to calm the market. Initial volume exceeded dealers’ expectations, while traffic on Cboe’s website was so heavy that it caused delays and […]

Bitcoin price prediction is just the start. 2017 has been a breakout year for crypto — with Bitcoin surpassing $10,000 and more than $3.8 billion raised this year in ICOs. We’ve seen truly mind-bending appreciation (like Ethereum’s 50X gains YTD) and witnessed the beginnings of countless new projects. In all the funding frenzy, we’ve […]

by Oliver McAteer – Former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, center, arrives at court (Picture: AP) Donald Trump‘s former national security adviser is reportedly prepared to testify against the president. Michael Flynn may throw Trump under the bus by telling the court he was instructed by him to contact Russians. He has already admitted […] […]

by Stephen Ulrich – a father of two girls We have come far as a society since the days when jokes about grabbing pussy could be dismissed as locker room banter, therefore excusable “among the guys.” It was more than slightly ironic that Billy Bush lost his job on Today, yet the person he was […]